9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (1) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s appeal under section 27A of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (for short "the Act"), against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short "the Tribunal"), dated June 6, 2001, whereby the appeal of the Revenue has been dismissed. For the assessment year 1984-85, the assessee had filed its return declaring negative wealth of Rs. 18,14,000 which was subsequently r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see contributed its house as capital whereas the other party contributed Rs. 75,00,000 by way of its capital. Subsequently, the assessee had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 55 lakhs from the newly constituted partnership firm. Due to disputes amongst the partners, the matter was referred to the Arbitrator, who announced his award on February 15, 1984, which became final on September 25, 1984, when it was r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 lakhs in respect of the amount withdrawn from the firm because the other partner had insisted on restoration of this amount. This liability was not allowed by the Assessing Officer. At the time of completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under section 18(1)(c) of the Act requiring the assessee to show cause as to why penalty for concealment of wealth a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he award was registered on September 25, 1984, with the Calcutta High Court, it became final on that date and, therefore, the assessee continued to be the legal owner of the property. The assessee, therefore, maintained that it was under this belief the valuation of this house had been declared under rule 1BB of the Rules. The assessee also claimed to have shown its liability for Rs. 55 lakhs with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
